toldailytopic: How did the universe come into existence?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
coulter4president
New member
I can't prove it to the satisfaction of atheists/agnostics but i know just the same that God (the God of Abraham, Isaac, etc) created the Earth and all that is in it.
Whether it took him 6 literal days or 6 bzillion days is beside the point
We know that an Intelligence created the universe.
One "proof" is that the earth is just the right distance from the sun. If we were just a little bit closer, we would burn up... if we were just a little bit further away, we would freeze. The earth is only inhabitable because it is the perfect distance away from the sun.
There are other proofs, but some atheists and agnostics dont consider them proofs... hmmm
Whether it took him 6 literal days or 6 bzillion days is beside the point
We know that an Intelligence created the universe.
One "proof" is that the earth is just the right distance from the sun. If we were just a little bit closer, we would burn up... if we were just a little bit further away, we would freeze. The earth is only inhabitable because it is the perfect distance away from the sun.
There are other proofs, but some atheists and agnostics dont consider them proofs... hmmm
unknown
New member
Tree Of Life
Tree Of Life
Behold, that before the emanations were emanated and the creatures were created,
The upper simple light had filled the whole existence.
And there was no vacancy, such as an empty atmosphere, a hollow, or a pit,
But all was filled with simple, boundless light.
And there was no such part as head, or tail,
But everything was simple, smooth light, balanced evenly and equally,
And it was called the Endless Light.
And when upon His simple will, came the desire to create the world and emanate the emanations,
To bring to light the perfection of His deeds, His names, His appellations,
Which was the cause of the creation of the worlds,
He then restricted Himself, in the middle,
Precisely in the center,
He restricted the light.
And the light drew far off to the sides around that middle point.
And there remained an empty space, a vacuum
Circling the middle point.
And the restriction had been uniform
Around the empty point,
So that the space
Was evenly circled around it.
There, after the restriction,
Having formed a vacuum and a space
Precisely in the middle of the endless light,
A place was formed,
Where the emanated and the created might reside.
Then from Endless Light a single line hung down,
Lowered down into that space.
And through that line, He emanated, formed,
Created all the worlds.
Before these four worlds came to be
There was one infinite, one name, in wondrous, hidden unity,
That even for the closest of the angles
There is no attainment in the endless,
As there is no mind that can perceive it,
For He has no place, no boundary, no name.
Tree Of Life
Behold, that before the emanations were emanated and the creatures were created,
The upper simple light had filled the whole existence.
And there was no vacancy, such as an empty atmosphere, a hollow, or a pit,
But all was filled with simple, boundless light.
And there was no such part as head, or tail,
But everything was simple, smooth light, balanced evenly and equally,
And it was called the Endless Light.
And when upon His simple will, came the desire to create the world and emanate the emanations,
To bring to light the perfection of His deeds, His names, His appellations,
Which was the cause of the creation of the worlds,
He then restricted Himself, in the middle,
Precisely in the center,
He restricted the light.
And the light drew far off to the sides around that middle point.
And there remained an empty space, a vacuum
Circling the middle point.
And the restriction had been uniform
Around the empty point,
So that the space
Was evenly circled around it.
There, after the restriction,
Having formed a vacuum and a space
Precisely in the middle of the endless light,
A place was formed,
Where the emanated and the created might reside.
Then from Endless Light a single line hung down,
Lowered down into that space.
And through that line, He emanated, formed,
Created all the worlds.
Before these four worlds came to be
There was one infinite, one name, in wondrous, hidden unity,
That even for the closest of the angles
There is no attainment in the endless,
As there is no mind that can perceive it,
For He has no place, no boundary, no name.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . actually, no . . . the universe as we know of it NOW had a beginning. The "big bang" is just a marker.
. . . as we see it NOW? No . . .
No . . . the "theory" is that the "universe" was in a different "state" (Iowa, perhaps . . . :rotfl
. . . see also Big Bang (as opposed to The Big Bang Theory).So?
. . . :idunno: . . . show evidence that they did/have.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . what a cheesy response . . .
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . LOL . . . you can't prove it to anyone's satisfaction . . . period.
. . . you make that leap certainly . . . but you can't know for sure.
The average distance from Earth to the Sun is 92.956 million miles approximately. In Aphelion (furthest) it is 94.4 million miles and in Perihelion (closest) it is 91.3 million miles approximately.
Since the Earth obviously doesn't "burn up" or "freeze" between the two extremes (aphelion/perihelion) . . . how much closer (or further away) would be the deal breaker? . . . hmmm?
---Quote (Originally by
alwight)---
A material explanation is
unknown but that doesn't
mean a material cause can
therefore be put aside in
favour of a supernatural one.-------A material cause cannot be put aside but neither can a supernatural either. If a material cause is unknown, however, you cannot claim that a material origin for the universe is a far superior idea to a supernatural origin. This is especially true when a plot can be put together that starts with specific creative events and show how they work scientifically and how that starting point better explains the evidence that we see today.
alwight)---
A material explanation is
unknown but that doesn't
mean a material cause can
therefore be put aside in
favour of a supernatural one.-------A material cause cannot be put aside but neither can a supernatural either. If a material cause is unknown, however, you cannot claim that a material origin for the universe is a far superior idea to a supernatural origin. This is especially true when a plot can be put together that starts with specific creative events and show how they work scientifically and how that starting point better explains the evidence that we see today.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
. . . actually, no . . . the universe as we know of it NOW had a beginning. The "big bang" is just a marker.
. . . as we see it NOW? No . . .
No . . . the "theory" is that the "universe" was in a different "state" (Iowa, perhaps . . . :rotfl
So?
. . . :idunno: . . . show evidence that they did/have.
From here:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62
Hawking said:
No, that's not it. In order for the Universe to be accelerating against gravity, some other force has to be acting on it. If gravity were braking without some other force being applied, we'd be decelerating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
This is somewhat out of context . . . since when cosmologists talk about the origin of the universe and that it "had a beginning" they mean as I stated earlier . . . that "the universe as we know of it NOW had a beginning. The "big bang" is just a marker."
Hawkings does think that there was a "time" before the BB . . . but isn't applicable to "the theory" . . .
What would it mean to say that there was a "before the Big Bang" unless he meant that the universe as it exists NOW had a beginning?Hawking said:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity (that means it doesn't speed up or slow down) unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . different than it is NOW.
According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today.
. . . obviously . . . it was different THEN than it is NOW . . . and will be different in the FUTURE than it is NOW.
Yes, exactly. If gravity is breaking, in order to be speeding up, another force must be acting contrary to gravity.
GuySmiley
---The last I heard, Hawking
and his type of people
found that the universe
had a beginning.-----In response to guy smiley claiming that hawking said the universe had a beginning you said that the universe was in a different state than it is now. I ask for clarification to which you reply that the universe at the time of the BB was very hot and dense and that it cooled and expanded into its present state. Did not that state of density of hotness at the BB also have a beginning?
---The last I heard, Hawking
and his type of people
found that the universe
had a beginning.-----In response to guy smiley claiming that hawking said the universe had a beginning you said that the universe was in a different state than it is now. I ask for clarification to which you reply that the universe at the time of the BB was very hot and dense and that it cooled and expanded into its present state. Did not that state of density of hotness at the BB also have a beginning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent
Hunter
First law: Every body
remains in a state of
constant velocity (that
means it doesn't speed up
or slow down) unless acted
upon by an external
unbalanced force.
Yes, exactly. If gravity is
breaking, in order to be
speeding up, another force
must be acting contrary to
gravity.
E------Unless space itself is doing the expanding. You wont accept that explanation if you don't believe space is a physical quantity.
Originally Posted by Silent
Hunter
First law: Every body
remains in a state of
constant velocity (that
means it doesn't speed up
or slow down) unless acted
upon by an external
unbalanced force.
Yes, exactly. If gravity is
breaking, in order to be
speeding up, another force
must be acting contrary to
gravity.
E------Unless space itself is doing the expanding. You wont accept that explanation if you don't believe space is a physical quantity.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . I have an engineering degree . . . something I think OEJ . . . lacks.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . :idunno: . . . but it seems like a reasonable . . . conclusion
liberals: what an odd word to use when talking about "beginnings").
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
What would cause space to "expand" at a different rate?
- Status